He did apologise for the first article. It was fairly obvious that it was not meant literally but the problem was that the piano wire thing was precisely the kind of thing that dickheads might feel was justified "for a laugh" by such an article. He admitted that he had been very, very silly.
It's amusing that someone has described him as "hate-filled" when you look at all the vitriol going his way from here. Incidentally, that term has become so cliched, tired and over-used that you might as well substitute for it, "somebody who's views I dislike". It also does not stand up when you take a broader look at his journalistic output, which is generally humane, thoughtful, kind hearted and reasonable. He made an arse out of himself once and apoligised for it. Now then, what was that about "he who is without sin" and stone chucking?